Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla vs Debian Analyzed
lisah writes "Linux.com has a behind the scenes look at the history of the ongoing debates between Debian and Mozilla that predate Debian's last release, Sarge. The article also reports the issue may have been laid to rest for good now that Debian tentatively plans on calling it "Iceweasel" but attorney Larry Rosen said this never should have been a debate in the first place. In addition, Mozilla has been prompted to clarify its position on the company's marketing blog."
Unfortunately it seems this guy was right on the money!
cbeard's post suggests that Ubuntu has made a similar agreement with Mozilla as the agreements that Red Hat and Novell have (which is why you'll see a full branded Firefox in SuSE and Fedora). But Ubuntu folks are working on an IceWeasel icon.
Anyone know what's up with Ubuntu? Are they going to pull official Firefox releases, or are they going to pull IceWeasel straight from Debian?
Couldn't Mozilla just have an alternate version called FreeFox with a modified logo - still recognisably fox-like - and allow the hardcore anti-non-free distros (Debian, Ubuntu et al)to adopt that? How about DebianFox? There's internal capitalisation to appease to programmers' naming sensibilities, and everyone else would know what the hell they were talking about. Seriously, not that hard, guys.
A better name would have been "Waterweasel," carrying over the alliteration Firefox has while being it's theoretical opposite still.
Mozilla people have stated that the Community Edition Policy (listed as draft) is still valid. In the Debian bug on this issue, some Debian devs are considering it. A lot of the Mozilla marketing people seem to be unaware of it & didn't list it as an option.
This policy seems to be a good fit--Debian MUST NOT include the image which is under a non-DFSG copyright to conform to this policy (they don't want to and currently don't include it, but the NEW "standard trademark policy" is that it must be used if the Firefox name is used). And they must rename it "Firefox Community Edition, Debian." This seems preferable to Ice Weasel for both the majority of Debian users and Mozilla's image. OpenBSD already follows this policy, as do others. If the CEP is ever dropped, there will be many more distros who will be forced to switch to "Ice Weasel."
What you fail to understand is the liabilities involved in letting another organization use a proprietary logo.
If the unauthorized use of logos were not prosecuted by a company I could do lots of fun things. For example, I could repackage the gimp, throw photoshop's splash image in it and call it photoshopper. Maybe the name of my company would be AdobeHut too. Better still, I'll put a "circle R" next to all of it and make it look official.
If Adobe doesn't throw every last lawyer at me, then lots of other people could do it. The courts would see it as essentially public domain. Meanwhile, I can drag Adobe into court for using my logo. Crazy right?
Both parties are doing the right thing here. I doubt it really consumed very much time/energy on the part of the project as these kinds of details must be addressed and that's about it.
Stories like this tend to make a figurative fire where there is none.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Looks like Debian is getting burned by its own arrogance.
The GPL-3 allows the copywrite holder to place certain restrictions on the licensee's use of the software, for instance no military/weapons use (don't like your stuff being used; Freedom's a biach isn't it). Restrictions on what parts of the code the use may or may not change; requiring links to download the source be maintained.
Now they being hit, once again, by restrictions the copywrite holders are placing on the distribution: if you distribute software that we own the copywrite to, you must maintain our branding. Sounds reasonable, the application is called Firefox and the logos and branding are part of the application; after all the copywrite holder does have the right to say what's part of application, (certain exceptions may apply in the case of illegal monopolies, and fraudlent activities). The usage restrictions also don't seem out of line with Debain's official logo usage.
http://www.debian.org/logos/Looks like the Mozilla Foundation is pretty much in line with the Debian usage here.
So the Debian developers are free to change the code however they want, but they can't call it Firefox and they can't use the Firefox logos.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
If Debian is as "totally free" as they claim, then presumably I could make my own distro and call it "Debian" too. (Or, hell, I could make a TOTALLY UNRELATED piece of software and call it "Debian"... the name is free, right?)
Can you imagine how life would be for distros if GNOME decided it doesn't get called GNOME unless it's the official GNOME release (no modifications)?
Yes, I can imagine it.
It would fucking ROCK.
Being able to assume that "GNOME 2.10" really is "GNOME 2.10" everywhere, and not "GNOME 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need"... well, it would make life a lot simpler for app developers.
This issue is larger than Debian. This is really about the GPL. If you downloaded the source code for Firefox, you'll find around 18 text files labeled 'license' in the source code and not one reference to the GPL. There are only references to the MPL. While the Mozilla website claims that it is "tri-licensed" under the GPL, I have found no evidence in the current source code that backs up that claim.
In fact, Mozilla has modified the text of the MPL, which now has a new preamble which states "You are not granted rights or licenses to the trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation or any party, including without limitation the Firefox name or logo." This is a new modification to the MPL and is not reflected in the version of the license available on the Mozilla website. Furthermore, this version of the license has not been analysed by the GNU project, and might not be compatable with the GPL.
It is a RED HERRING to argue that trademark and copyright law offer a distinction in this case. If you release source code that contains image files which are licensed under the GPL, they are licensed under the GPL. If you release it under them under a tri-license, then they are tri-licensed. If you pick and choose which parts of your source code are GPL or MPL, then, well, you have a problem with compliance.
This is a serious LEGAL issue, not a moral issue. IMHO, all distros which are distributed under the GPL should stop using the MPL until they consult legal counsel!
Nope, it's pretty clear from the article that that logos and associated graphics are the issue. Trademark use conditions require that they be included. The Debian Free Software Guidelines require that they not be included. Thus, Mozilla Corporation postures some, and also attaches other strings; like the patch review & description, tagged subversion branch, prior approval of build conditions themselves, and inclusion of said graphics.
/etc/alternatives sort of way). In Debian and Ubuntu, it would be the 'sensible-browser', most likely. Folks could always still just go download the shell-archive installer from mozilla.org any time they want to and drop their own out-of-package-management version of the one true firefox.
I agree with the rest of your statement, though, and I do think that this business is a big waste of developer time and effort. Now it is really more difficult to comply adequately, depending on the nature and volume of Debian's patches.
If one were to invite prognostication from me, I'd say that this sort of response will grow, as Mozilla Corporation flexes it's muscle over trademark enforcement. I'd guess that Debian, Ubuntu, and any other distro striving to be truly free, will probably do something like perform conditions 1 and 3 anyway (publicly submit patches w/descriptions, as well as tag their divergent branch), will probably exert the GPL and use whatever build time configurations they think are best, and lastly, come up with their own artwork and graphics.
That will further their goal of using & distributing free, high-quality software (without non-free strings attached to binary data included in the final product) to their users. My guess is that creative icon-ing will make this change remarkeably less noticeable to end users. After all, there is no reason that iceweasel (et. al.) couldn't use the same (or similar) versioning and advertise itself as being 'firefox compatible' as far as extensions & page rendering go. Not to mention, that I seriously doubt it would be a violation of trademark to install a 'firefox', or 'mozilla-firefox' symbolic link (in a very
On the side of Mozilla Corp., they will either decide that this dilutes the brand, and just bend to unify everyone, or they won't care and will drop strictly-all-free sorts of GNU/Linux distributions, assuming that the market share they bring is minimal.
And that will be that. Just my guess, anyway. If Mozilla Corp is smart, they'll exclude the user-agent string from trademark issues so that at least usage statistics will show a unified product, rather ruining firefox's growing usage statistics rank in a schism.
When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
...except you forgot to add that this quote was meant to express Nietzsche's take on love, and not in some mythical book called "Life in Hell"--which was a late revision of multiple sources, not entirely unlike the Bible or the U.S. Constitution in that regard--but in "Love is Hell," which preceded the other "...is Hell" books. Special +1 Informatives for anyone who can list the other philosophers whose theories of life were discussed on this same page of "Love is Hell." (I can't actually remember, but I think one was Kierkegaard.)
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Now this is one reason why I love open source software so much. They have fun with their naming. It makes using an OS so much more interesting. Much better than using those staid commercial systems. IceWeasel has to rate up there with replacing "more" with "less", or naming a vi clone as "Elvis".
From Merriam-Webster:-
/-"trer-&-lE, -'trer-/ adverb /-"trer-E-n&s, -'trer-/ noun
Main Entry: contrary
Pronunciation: 'kän-"trer-E, -"tre-rE, 4 often k&n-'trer-E
Function: adjective
1 : being so different as to be at opposite extremes : OPPOSITE (come to the contrary conclusion) (went off in contrary directions); also : being opposite to or in conflict with each other (contrary viewpoints)
2 : being not in conformity with what is usual or expected (actions contrary to company policy) (contrary evidence)
3 : UNFAVORABLE -- used of wind or weather
4 : temperamentally unwilling to accept control or advice
- contrarily
- contrariness
Without simply being derogatory, I've realised that when I think of Debian, the above word is what has customarily come to mind. It's nothing I can concretely put my finger on, but I've always felt that there was an aura of perversity about the project...a sense that the Debian developers change things from the upstream norm purely because they can, and not because they've necessarily put thought into whether or not it'd actually be a good idea. Not only that, I can also remember going into the Debian IRC channel on Freenode once. It reminded me very strongly of the account of the Mad Hatter's tea party from Alice in Wonderland. They honestly came across as some of the weirdest and most unhinged individuals I've encountered. I've been using IRC for 12 years, and have known some very bizarre types online...so that is saying a lot.
I'm not claiming that that is definitely what is happening here...I don't know, and the referenced article is sufficiently vague that I feel as though I still haven't got a better idea after having read it. What I am definitely saying however is that from what I've seen, these kinds of issues coming up is entirely consistent with Debian culturally. It's also one of the reasons why I've stayed far away from the distribution; that, their degree of formality with "policy", (are they a FOSS project, or a sovereign government?!) and their degree of open sympathy with Stallman/the FSF. I think I also resent the fact that I've read about them being referred to as the only "successful" non-commercial distribution, when due in part to the reasons listed above, there are others that I feel are at least as worthy of that designation as Debian is, if not moreso. Debian might be bigger, sure...but size alone does not necessarily equal success in my own mind.
That's not to say that there haven't been good things to come from the project, at least in a secondary sense. (Knoppix and Ubuntu come to mind, which are both Debian spinoffs) The point is that it's a long way from perfect...and things like this debacle are evidence to support that assertion.
Please stop differentiating between Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation like that to make it sound like MoFo are nice people and MoCo are evil. Mozilla Corporation is just a front they set up for legal and tax-related reasons. It's the exact same people running the project now as before.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
Actually, most of the changes revolved around removing the logo, since it's current owner is not releasing it under DFSG friendly policy. I guess Mozilla's corporate council woke up to what was happening and decided to tell em they can't cherry pick Firefox branding. Debian hasn't been using the firefox icon for a quite some time. Ultimately I think it hurts Firefox's brand a bit, and debian's user friendlyness as well. What Debian distributes is basically firefox. Their changes are typically either security backports to versions Mozilla doesn't support, the aforementioned logo patch, and I think they also take out the automatic check for updates, since they already provide a system wide tool for doing this (dkpg/apt-get), in a manner that doesn't rely on limited user accounts installing software. If I were Mozilla, these changes alone wouldn't be so bad, and I'd grant Debian an exception (and I believe I read that Mozilla's council was willing to do exactly that under some conditions), except for one problem:
Debian isn't satisfied with an exception. Perhaps rightfully so. Several people have taken the liberty to capitalize on Debian's Free nature and modified and distributed Debian. To willfully package and distribute firefox as an exception would be placing a landmine for these people to step on inadvertantly. Digging through each and every package to verify that it is indeed safe to modify and redistribute is a task so large as to discourage people from ever attempting it legally. And given that Debian's existance owes to the fact that someone else gave them software freely redistributable and modifiable, it would be hypocritical not to reciprocate. So Debian naturally demands that they be able to offer the same rights that have been extended to them.
This demand finds itself at odds with Mozilla's branding efforts. Mozilla worries about a number of possible modifications being negative and associated with firefox. Not in the "aids terrorists" way, but in the "adds spyware and makes people hate firefox" way. Even the community edition version is highly resistant to changes. But that doesn't mean Debian has to agree to help promote Firefox. Hence Debian's move to IceWeasel--a complete rebranding of firefox, one I hope who's aim is to minimize the changeset from firefox to only exactly what is required to allow free redistribution without landmines.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin